Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

EU Law > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

(100 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Andy Wightman and Ors v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] CSIH 62 –

A

Could notification be withdrawn?
Much discussion about possibility of revoking notice
Brexit
sought decision whether notification could be revoked as a matter of law. Court of Session made preliminary reference to CJEU. Answer: notification could be revoked.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Elizabeth Webster v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] EWHC 1543 Admin

A

Brexit- had withdrawal been taken?
challenged the decision on basis that referendum act did not stipulate outcome would be legally binding. Challenge failed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Miller No 1) [2017] UKSC 5

A

Brexit- who has power to notify?
challenged PM’s power to make decision to notify without Parliamentary Approval. UKSC decided that an Act of Parliament was required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (case 66/85) [1986] ECR 2121 [16-17]

A

Free movement of persons
Autonomous definition of workers
Free movement of workers shall be secured within the union

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 53/81) [1982] ECR 1035 [17] [16] ‘

A

Free-movement of workers
Part time workers s45

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Case C-292/89 Antonissen [1991] ECR I-745: [11]-[13]

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Case 139/85 Kempf vStaatssecretaris vanJustitie [1986] ECR 1741, paragraph 13

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (case 196/87) [1988] ECR 6159

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Van Gend en Loos Case 26/62 [1963] at 11

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL vBosman (C-415/93) [1995] ECR I-4921

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Clean Car Autoservice GmbH v Landeshauptmann von Wien (C-350/96)[1998] ECR I-2521

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Cristini v Société nationale des chemins de fer français (case 32/75) [1975]ECR 1085

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Groener v Minister for Education and the City of Dublin VocationalEducational Committee (case 379/87) [1989] ECR 3967

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (C-281/98) [2000] ECR I-4139

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Commission v Belgium (case 149/79) [1982] ECR 1845

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Commission v Italy (case 225/85) [1987] ECR 2625

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Commission v Luxembourg (C-473/93) [1996] ECR I-3207

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Van Duyn v Home Office (case 41/74) [1974] ECR 1337

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Adoui & Cornuaille v Belgium (cases 115 & 116/81) [1982] ECR 1665

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

R v Bouchereau (case 30/77) [1977] ECR 1999

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (c-34/09)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

• Zhu and Chen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-200/02) [2004] ECR I-9925

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Rendon Marin v Administracion del Estado (c-165/14)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Chavez-Vilchez v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (C-133/15)

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Singh v Minister for Justice and Equality (c-218/14)
26
Reinhard Gebhard v Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano (C-55/94) [1995] ECR I-4165
27
• Reisebüro Broede v Gerd Sandker (C-3/95) [1996] ECR I-6511
28
Höfner and Elser v Macrotron GmbH (case C-41/90)
29
Case 15/74, Centrafarm [1974] ECR 1147], para. 41)
30
Joined Cases T-68, 77, 78/89, Italian Flat Glass [1992] ECR II-1403, para 357
31
Whish & Bailey 2018 p131)
32
Allianz Hungária, Case C-32/11 [2013] 4 CMLR 25, page
33
Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova[1991] ECR I-5889.
34
Bayer v Commission (2000)
35
85/76 Hoffman-La Roche & Co AG v Commission [1979] ECR 461 3)
36
Case C-379/98 Preussen Elektra AG v Schleswag AG(200
37
Case C-374/17 A-Brauerei (2018)
38
Dorsch Consult (C-54/96) [1997] ECR I-4961
39
Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (C-621/18) ECLI:EU:C:2018:999
40
Dorsch Consult (C-54/96) [1997] ECR I-4961
41
Slob v Productschap Zuivel (C-236/02) [2004] ECR I-1861
42
Costa v E.N.E.L. (Case 6-64) [1964] ECR 58
43
Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost (Case 314/85) [1987] ECR 4199
44
Da Costa (Cases 28-30/62) [1963] ECR 31
45
CILFIT v Ministry of Health (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 para.16
46
Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate [2013] CSOH 70
47
Plaumann & Co v Commission (Case 25/62) [1963] ECR 95
48
Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council (C-50/00P) [2002] ECR I-6677
49
○ France v Commission (C-327/91) [1994] ECR I-3641
50
Maizena GmbH v Council (Case 139/79) [1980] ECR 3393
51
Giuffrida v Council (105/75) [1976] ECR 1395
52
Star Fruit Company SA v Commission (Case 247/87) [1989] ECR 291
53
Commission v Greece (C-387/97) [2000] ECR I-5047
54
Commission v Spain (C-278/01) [2003] ECR I-14141
55
Commission v France (C-304/02) [2005] ECR I-6263
56
Commission v Netherlands (Case 96/81) [1982]ECR 1791
57
Commission v Germany (Case 29/84) [1985] ECR1661
58
Commission v UK (C-146/89) [1991] ECR I-3533
59
Commission v Italy (Case 7/61) [1961] ECR 317
60
Commission v Greece (Case 226/87)[1988] ECR 3611
61
Commission v Belgium (Case 293/85)[1988] ECR 305
62
Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (C-6/90 and C-9/90) [1991] ECR I-5357
63
Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (C-46/93 & C-48/93) [1996] ECR I-102
64
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd.
65
Case C–331/88 Fedesa (1990))
66
Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein (1970)
67
Francovich and others v Italy (1991)
68
Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (1979)
69
Marshall v Southampton and South-West Area Health Authority (Teaching) (No 1) (1986)
70
Petra Engler v Janus Versand [2005] —CASEC-27/02 [51]
71
C-21/76 - HandelskwekerijBier v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace
72
Sakhanov v Russia (2016), Appl no 16599/16
73
Google Inc v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Consteja Gonzales(C-131/12)
74
Constantin Film Verleih GmbH v YouTube LLC and Google In
75
Commission v Italy (statistical levy) (case 24/68) [1969] ECR 193
76
Rewe-Zentralfinanz GmbH v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Westfalen-Lippe (case 39-73) [1973] ECR 1039
77
Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v SA Ch Brachfeld & Sons (cases 2and 3-69) [1969] ECR 211
78
Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing (C-393/04 and C-41/05)[2006] ECR I-5293
79
Commission v Germany (case 18/87) [1988] ECR 5427
80
Conceria Daniele Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze(case 87-75) [1976] ECR 129
81
Commission v Italy (Art Treasures) Case 7/68, [1968] ECR 423
82
Jägerskiöld v Gustafsson Case C-97/98 [1999] ECR I-7319
83
Commission v Belgium (Wallonian Waste) Case C-2/90, [1992] ECR I-4431
84
R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion in World Farming Ltd (C-1/96) [1998] ECR I-1251
85
Commission v France (Spanish strawberries) (C-265/95) [1997] ECR I-6959
86
• Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (case 8/74) [1974] ECR 837
87
International Fruit Company NV, Rotterdam v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit (cases 51-54/71) [1971] ECR 1107
88
Commission v Ireland (“Buy Irish”) (case 249/81) [1982] ECR 4005
89
PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (C-379/98) [2001] ECR 1-2099
90
Commission v Germany (Weinbrand) (case 12/74) [1975] ECR 181
91
Walter Rau v De Smeldt PvbA (case 261/81) [1982] ECR 3961
92
Keck (C-267/91 & C-268/91) [1993] ECR 6097, [15]
93
Commission v Italy (Trailers) (C-110/05) [2009] ECR I-159
94
Keck and Mithouard (C-267/91 & C-268/91) [1993] ECR 6097
95
Åklagaren v Mickelsson, Roos (C-142/05) [2009] ECR 4273
96
Conegate v HM Customs and Excise (case 121/85) [1986] ECR 1007
97
Commission v UK (turkeys) (case 40/82) [1984] ECR 2793
98
Commission v Denmark (Danish bottles) (case 302/86) [1988] ECR 4607
99
• Bluhme (C-67/97) [1998] ECR I-8033
100
Case27/76 United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission of theEuropean Communities

EU Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions